"his power and even his being derive from the Father, but as Son who has been given everything from the Father (in both eternity and in time), Jesus has all that the Father has, not merely his attributes, but even his identity as YHWH."
If his being is derivative, he is not God, as you yourself said.
"All the immediate successors of the apostles taught unambiguously that Jesus was fully divine. None, absolutely none of them taught that Jesus was an incarnate "Archangel", "Metatron", or whatever beings but the divine being."
That Jesus was a powerful archangel was a Jewish christology mentioned by, and not refuted by, no less than Justin Martyr. Jesus himself taught exactly that - inasmuch as he identified himself with the heavenly pre-existent Son of Man. Some say that when he used the term he was using a polite, demure circumlocution for referring to himself, an interpretation that essentially meant - "me - this guy".
Of course that's at best a partial truth, because at his Sanhedrin trial Jesus was accused of "blasphemy" precisely because he was claiming to be a "Second Power in Heaven". The Son of Man was the functional equivalent of Metatron - the angel that stands at God's side - and Paul identifies the pre-existent Jesus with the Adam Kadmon, the celestial First Man. Note that Peter's sermons in Acts NEVER describe Jesus as God, but only as "a man" who attempted to convert Israel, and as the Messiah. If Peter/Acts thought Jesus was God, Peter's sermons would not have missed that point. Peter would have said that the Good News consisted in the startling fact that God had incarnated in Jesus. But he doesn't (iirc he says of the Jerusalemites, "you killed the author of life", but this means the author of salvation, not the "Creator"). He only says that Jesus's righteousness was such that God raised him up. He doesn't even say that JESUS raised HIMSELF up.
"Saying no means you have a pre-conceived idea of what "God" should be. God cannot be "derivative". God must be "un-caused".
Nearly everyone has a preconceived idea of what Gods is, inluding you. But as you said, God cannot be derivative, so inasmuch as Jesus was derivative, he cannot be God. But Jesus as pre-existent Adam and God's Messianic servant was derivative, according to Jesus's own purported words.
You still have not addressed the facts which I gave which show that Jesus specifically excluded himself from the Godhead ("You, Father, are THE ONLY TRUE GOD", "I am a MAN who has heard and obeys God's word", etc.) You still have not addressed the fact that NT prayer is never addressed to Jesus as God, but is only addressed TO God "through" or "in" Jesus, or "in Jesus's name". Paul says "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ..." Not "one God and Lord, Jesus Christ", and so on.
"when he speaks of Jesus as the image of God, it is not in contradiction to his equality with God, but in agreement to it! To Paul, Jesus, for all practical purposes, was YHWH, though not the Father."
Except that for Paul, Jesus and all Jews, Yahweh was the only, one, single, true God. Jesus was the Son on earth, not the Father in heaven, and therefore was not God. And again, I did not dispute that Jesus was seen as equal with God, but I said that equality does not mean that a person IS God. Divine union mystics throughout time have claimed equality with God without claiming to BE the Creator. One Sufi mystic gestured to himself, saying, "There is no one inside this cloak but God" - not a claim to be God, but rather to have been completely immersed in, and unified with God. For his trouble, he, like Jesus, ended up crucified because his audience did not understand the claim he was actually making.
Per the work of Margaret Barker, Alan F. Segal and many others, it was even possible for Christians to think of Jesus as Yahweh without thinking of Jesus as God, so the NT's occasional naming Jesus as "Yahweh" is not determinative for a Trinitarian view.
The reason being that before the Deuteronomist "reforms", Yawheh was widely regarded as the ANGEL of the Lord, the true Lord being the high God El Elyon. The Jewish Bible clearly states this, that El Elyon, the Most High, gave Israel to his angelic son, Yahweh, as Yahweh's "portion". Originally, Yahweh was the Son, and the Father was El Elyon.
Those Christians who called Jesus "Yahweh" were members of the "underground stream" of believers who regarded the Most High - who was El Elyon - as having an angelic Son who stood at his right side, bore the Divine Name, and exercised divine judgment. Exactly the Son of Man's, Yahoel's, Metatron's, and Jesus's own functions.
Jesus as Yahweh = Jesus the son of the Most High El Elyon. That is how and why he could bear Yahweh's name without being the one true God, El Elyon.
If you don't have a background in intertestamental/Second Temple mysticism and angelmorphology, you should know that this data is absolutely indispensable for understanding NT christology. I strongly recommend that you read at least three books in this regard:
and
If you are not willing to look into this issue seriously, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to stop my end of this conversation.